The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Residents of two western New Providence communities were yesterday said to feel they have “made a very strong case” against rezoning a West Bay Street property to facilitate a hotel’s expansion plans.

Geoffrey Stuart, who developed a petition by Gambier Heights homeowners against A Stone’s Throw Away’s plans, told Tribune Business he personally is “not very concerned” about the resort’s prospects for obtaining Town Planning Committee approval to develop a site at the junction with Tropical Gardens Road into a cafe, grocery store and florists (see other article here).

Speaking after Monday’s hearing before the planning watchdog, at which both sides presented their respective cases, he said its Board was due to meet on and discuss the matter yesterday with a decision expected before the upcoming weekend.

“We had a great turnout from those who are against the matter. No one other than the owner of the property [Oneil Khosa] spoke up for it,” Mr Stuart told this newspaper. “He was making it sound like it was hunky dory and the best place. We pointed out that he’s putting an entrance and exit about 20 feet away from the main West Bay Street. We pointed out to him that this is not palatable for us.”

He argued that the entrance to the proposed cafe and grocery store was not large enough for arriving and exiting vehicles to pass at the same time, and said he informed Mr Khosa that when suppliers come to offload goods for A Stone’s Throw Away they often have to park in the middle of the road and hold up all other traffic until they have finished.

“We made a very strong case for the matter,” Mr Stuart continued. “We were confident with what we did, and should know hopefully by tomorrow [today]. They [Town Planning] said they would let us know by the weekend. They’re meeting today, and will let us know the results of the meeting. The Board is meeting today. Almost six to seven persons spoke out against it.”

One of those speakers is understood to have threatened to launch a Judicial Review action opposing any approval and take the matter all the way to the London-based Privy Council, the highest court in the UK judicial system, should it become necessary.

Mr Stuart, meanwhile, reiterated his concern that A Stone’s Throw Away could develop a nightclub, bar or fast-food restaurant on the property if the the rezoning is approved, although this was denied by Mr Khosa. “The fact they have a business plan that says coffee store and grocery shop, if the business plan is not working today what’s it going to be tomorrow? Once it gets commercialised, who knows what will end up there,” he added.

And he also voiced concern that approving the resort’s plans could set a dangerous precedent by paving the way for other commercial ventures to come into the area. “That is a serious concern,” Mr Stuart said. “One always has to be concerned that in doing so another says why can’t I? We are already somewhat commercial in the sense that we have duplexes and other multi-family issues. When you develop these things you don’t know who’s coming in and at what level.”

Mr Khosa, in his July 30, 2023, application confirmed he owns the site and that it is adjacent to the existing hotel property. Explaining the rationale the re-zoning, he argued: “Currently the land has two buildings that have been left abandoned for a long period by the previous owners.

“Our intention is to upgrade the existing buildings without any real external changes and use them to start a cafe, flower shop cum grocery store and food and beverage. We believe such use will not only be a great solution for these two buildings but will also help beautify and enhance the entire curb appeal of the corner.”

Documents filed with Town Planning, though, revealed this is not the first time that A Stone’s Throw Away has sought to gain approval for re-zoning this same site. However, its 2020 bid, which involved developing the property into a restaurant and fast-food takeaway, was rejected by the Minnis administration’s Town Planning Committee.

Charles Zonicle, the physical planning director, in a December 16, 202, paper said of the 16,526 square foot site that it was virtually surrounded by single family and residential properties. And, at the public consultation held virtually some six days before, “two neighbours, immediately east and west of the subject property, expressed objections to the proposed change of land use as incompatible in relation to their residential properties”.

As a result, and with parking concerns also factored into the mix, Mr Zonicle wrote: “The Department does not support the request to change the use of the two small structures to commercial land use. The proposed development is deemed to be an incompatible land use.”

This history was noted by Jehan Wallace, the Department of Physical Planning’s chief physical planner, in her August 2023 paper to the Town Planning Committee. However, it appears that three years later he planning authorities have decided to test the waters again.

“Although the current request is similar in nature,” Ms Wallace wrote, “significant time has passed and the Department would like to determine if the neighbourhood objections are still the same.”